A Simple Theory

i need to find the thread where mcgirth sonned you like hopkins/trinidad

Click to expand...

???

Dood, I trained Double in the art of being unsonnable.
I cannot be fathered for I existed before time, as the source, before form.

I know that you believed you stumbled across some grandiose thought when you posted this thread and your Fort made on sand came tumbling down when I poured the my liquid response on its foundation (not to mention Menaz and I have completely hikjacked your thread), but it'll be alright. Chalk it up and move forward, grasshopper. You'll live to fight another day.

Who are "you" to disagree? Who isn't agreeing? Better yet, what are "you"? What isn't agreeing? Strip away your ego (the identity that is you) and take away your name, all of your social labels and every material mental concept that you consist of and what is left to agree or disagree? What is the meaning of the illusion that is you? Meaning indicates purpose? Purpose indicates an objective, a goal . . . a goal requires an end. If you are eternal, how can there be a goal? Eternity has no end.

This world, this life, has no meaning other than that realization.

Shakespeare said it best in MacBeth:
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Click to expand...

lol, once again youre completely manipulating my sense of reality. i dont have time to philisophically figure it all out.. until then, i follow my intellectual instincts. you could say im a gambler... i place my bet on this world and life having meaning to it. with this bet, i could win or i could lose, depending on whether theres meaning or not. but if i bet on there being no meaning... it would be like betting that the house wont be able to pay out the jackpot. whether i "win or lose" that bet, im still gonna lose.

who knows, maybe peoples lives are writing books in some great library in the sky. why not improve some of the stories...

Or like the majority of people who are watching the shadows on the wall, waiting for eternity to arrive sometime in the near (or perhaps distant) future. But, eternity can never be tomorrow, for tomorrow will never come. The moment it arrives it will be the present and when it is present in one's life, one will miss it because they will still be waiting for the future. To be in the moment is to be in eternity. And why not be in the now? Why dwell on the past or dream about the future and waste away your entire life. If tomorrow were your last day on earth, and you knew it for a fact, would you waste that day feeding your hopes and dreams or reflecting on your past which is dead and gone and lives on only in the delusional mind? Tomorrow may very well be your last day and death will most certainly be the end of "you" as the identity. Stop dreaming and hoping. Wake up and be.

Surface dwellers are playing their part in the ongoing play. Their lives are not in vain, so long as there are people willing to watch them.

The Icaru (I mispelled it the first post) are the so-called Saints, Preachers and Priests who try to personify their worldly concepts of "perfection" only to fail miserably, as all are bound to do . . . this does not include the few enlightened beings who may be perceived as failures in the eyes of the world.

There have been many Watchers. And yes, they are living. In fact, only they are truly living.

Click to expand...

ahh i see, that clears it up for me.

so the mole would be someone reading all the books trying to find the final truth there, when hes looking in the wrong place... those books might help, but the truth is in his present existence that he keeps avoiding.

interesting idea about eternity.. if paradise is always in the future, how can we get there, right? lol.

check out this poem by rudagi, a persian poet -

live in joy with joyous black-eyed girls
for life is just a tale, a breath.
be open to the present,
silent on the past.
all i want is scented tresses,
the houri-sprung moon-faced one.
happy he who gave and could take pleasure,
unhappy he who neither took nor gave.
this world is wind and cloud and mirage.
pour more wine, for what will be, will be.

lol, once again youre completely manipulating my sense of reality. i dont have time to philisophically figure it all out.. until then, i follow my intellectual instincts. you could say im a gambler... i place my bet on this world and life having meaning to it. with this bet, i could win or i could lose, depending on whether theres meaning or not. but if i bet on there being no meaning... it would be like betting that the house wont be able to pay out the jackpot. whether i "win or lose" that bet, im still gonna lose.

Click to expand...

Unless of course your freedom from this world, your liberation, your "kingdom of heaven" that you are looking for is entirely dependent upon your ability to see this world for what it is. So many Christian people expect a "next" life. But, what did Yeshua (Jesus) say? "The Kingdom is not some far off place to be found. Nobody will say to you, 'Here it is!' or 'There it is!" for the Kingdom of God is within you."
If you are a Muslim, Mohammed said it in this way, "The one who knows himself knows Allah. Allah is nearer to you than your own jugular vein."

However, this self is not the identity self, it is the unconscious self. It is not the dream self, it is the self that is dreaming it is the dream self.

who knows, maybe peoples lives are writing books in some great library in the sky. why not improve some of the stories...

Click to expand...

Why believe that there are stars? Because you can see them, right? What if you were blind? What if you are blind? Wouldn't you rather be able to look up and see the stars overhead? We, all of us as a whole, as a singular super-consciousness are the Divine, God, The Tao, etc.

Psalm 82:6 - "I have said, 'Ye are gods; all of you are children of the Most High. But you will die like mere men.'"

ahh i see, that clears it up for me.

so the mole would be someone reading all the books trying to find the final truth there, when hes looking in the wrong place... those books might help, but the truth is in his present existence that he keeps avoiding.

Click to expand...

Yes

interesting idea about eternity.. if paradise is always in the future, how can we get there, right? lol.

Click to expand...

We can't be there. It must be here.

check out this poem by rudagi, a persian poet -

live in joy with joyous black-eyed girls
for life is just a tale, a breath.
be open to the present,
silent on the past.
all i want is scented tresses,
the houri-sprung moon-faced one.
happy he who gave and could take pleasure,
unhappy he who neither took nor gave.
this world is wind and cloud and mirage.
pour more wine, for what will be, will be.

Click to expand...

Check out this poem by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching (Verse 20)

" If we could abolish knowledge and wisdom
Then people would profit a hundredfold;
If we could abolish duty and justice
Then harmonious relationships would form;
If we could abolish artifice and profit
Then waste and theft would disappear.

" Empty the self completely;
Embrace perfect peace.
The world will rise and move;
Watch it return to rest.
All the flourishing things
Will return to their source.

This return is peaceful;
It is the flow of nature,
An eternal decay and renewal.
Accepting this brings enlightenment,
Ignoring this brings misery.

Who accepts nature's flow becomes all-cherishing;
Being all-cherishing he becomes impartial;
Being impartial he becomes magnanimous;
Being magnanimous he becomes natural;
Being natural he becomes one with the Way;
Being one with the Way he becomes immortal:
Though his body will decay, the Way will not."

You may think me silly, ridiculous or even foolish . . . and I am, but remember this always: We are rewarded or punished byour actions and not for them. Whether we dwell in heaven or hell, our environment need not change, but only our frame of mind. One may be in a cage and be free or out in society and be enslaved.

The premise is that humans possess a need to control reality. This is an evolutionary measure: one has to be controlling about certain things or else he will lose control over his life and be unable to keep himself alive. By this fact, we can deduce that all humans are controlling by nature since this tendency is critical to survival.

Click to expand...

Yet couldn't the opposite also be said to be true?

For an individual, a willingness to submit to another can increase the rate of survival, by not 'butting heads' with others seeking power and also if the master grants things that increase the chance of survival and procreation (for example, a large salary). By submitting to someone with greater control, the one with lesser control can ensures his survival. This "one with greater control" need not even be an individual, it could be say, a corporation, state, organization, ideology, etc.

IF anything the evolutionary need isn't for individuals to control reality FOR THEMSELVES but simply to have reality controlled in some form or other by their group/masters. By having reality controlled, there are more resources, assuming that the individual has sufficient resources to ensure his survival and to procreate - then this sort of situation would be preferable from an evolutionary perspective.
In sum, evolution promotes GROUP control of reality - not individual control. (think worker ants working in unison) As a consequence of group control - evolution may promote a desire to submit rather than dominate.

thats all true but under this theory control isn't defined flatly as just subjugation over things.

I defined it as: "the desire to get what you want and the way one would go about doing that" so as you can see its a pretty broad definition which could include many different... methods, lets say.

thus submission to another would still fit under this definition of control in the sense that 1. there is a desire for something (it can provide what I want) \

and

2. some method of some sort is employed in order to achieve it (i have to submit to its desires to get what i want)

Is this not still control?

lets try to run an example through the filter of this theory.

i work as a machinist for a transit bus manufacturing company. i've been working there for 10 years now. i make very good money but the work is very hard and The boss is a real asshole. he gives me a hard time every single day. sometimes i wish i could kill him. in addition every day after work my hands are hurt and my body is sore. but i make good money and this makes me happy.

in this example the machinist wanted that big fat money and saw working in this hellish realm as a method for achieving it. in other words it was his unique strategy for getting what he wanted.

though he is being used by them to get what they want, he is still in turn using them to get what he wants.

both the subjugator and the subjugated are thus similar, except for the simple fact they use different method/stratgegies to get the unique thing that they want. it only appears to look like submissive cooperation at the surface. underneath, however - it is selfish (like the dawkins kind of selfish) promotion and attainment of one's own desires.

as you can see, in the end, even submission can still be a form of control.

besides the real interesting part is the way people react to getting their control strategies violated. i think this is ultimately the root to all problems like depression,anxiety, rage whatever. thats the real point of this theory

For an individual, a willingness to submit to another can increase the rate of survival, by not 'butting heads' with others seeking power and also if the master grants things that increase the chance of survival and procreation (for example, a large salary). By submitting to someone with greater control, the one with lesser control can ensures his survival. This "one with greater control" need not even be an individual, it could be say, a corporation, state, organization, ideology, etc.

IF anything the evolutionary need isn't for individuals to control reality FOR THEMSELVES but simply to have reality controlled in some form or other by their group/masters. By having reality controlled, there are more resources, assuming that the individual has sufficient resources to ensure his survival and to procreate - then this sort of situation would be preferable from an evolutionary perspective.
In sum, evolution promotes GROUP control of reality - not individual control. (think worker ants working in unison) As a consequence of group control - evolution may promote a desire to submit rather than dominate.

Click to expand...

Fight or flight...

Or capitulate.

I still prefer flight. We as a species aren't done here by a long shot.

thats all true but under this theory control isn't defined flatly as just subjugation over things.

I defined it as: "the desire to get what you want and the way one would go about doing that" so as you can see its a pretty broad definition which could include many different... methods, lets say.

thus submission to another would still fit under this definition of control in the sense that 1. there is a desire for something (it can provide what I want) \

and

2. some method of some sort is employed in order to achieve it (i have to submit to its desires to get what i want)

Is this not still control?

lets try to run an example through the filter of this theory.

i work as a machinist for a transit bus manufacturing company. i've been working there for 10 years now. i make very good money but the work is very hard and The boss is a real asshole. he gives me a hard time every single day. sometimes i wish i could kill him. in addition every day after work my hands are hurt and my body is sore. but i make good money and this makes me happy.

in this example the machinist wanted that big fat money and saw working in this hellish realm as a method for achieving it. in other words it was his unique strategy for getting what he wanted.

though he is being used by them to get what they want, he is still in turn using them to get what he wants.

both the subjugator and the subjugated are thus similar, except for the simple fact they use different method/stratgegies to get the unique thing that they want. it only appears to look like submissive cooperation at the surface. underneath, however - it is selfish (like the dawkins kind of selfish) promotion and attainment of one's own desires.

as you can see, in the end, even submission can still be a form of control.

Click to expand...

im sort of tired/drunk right now so maybe my response isn't all that great!
but,
in your theory how would foresight/intelligence and control interact?
(think about the implications of foresight/greater control and depression for instance, it seems to contradict reality)

Also, "getting what one wants" is not neccesarily linked to survival. If one wants Your version of "control" is thus not neccessarily linked to evolution, at best its a loose connection. For example, i could want sex with 100s of women with protection, which has ultimately no effect on my evolutionary traits getting passed on since i don't have any children. Or, i could want chocolat icecream, this also, perhaps more obviously has no relation to survival. So basically in the way you defined control, there is no reason why 'control' would be linked to survival or evolution if it is "the desire to get what you want and the way one would go about doing that". That part struck me as being tacked on.

im sort of tired/drunk right now so maybe my response isn't all that great!
but,
in your theory how would foresight/intelligence and control interact?
(think about the implications of foresight/greater control and depression for instance, it seems to contradict reality)

Also, "getting what one wants" is not neccesarily linked to survival. If one wants Your version of "control" is thus not neccessarily linked to evolution, at best its a loose connection. For example, i could want sex with 100s of women with protection, which has ultimately no effect on my evolutionary traits getting passed on since i don't have any children. Or, i could want chocolat icecream, this also, perhaps more obviously has no relation to survival. So basically in the way you defined control, there is no reason why 'control' would be linked to survival or evolution if it is "the desire to get what you want and the way one would go about doing that". That part struck me as being tacked on.

Click to expand...

Organisms that think do so for a reason. They have to find mates, avoid predators, find food etc...

essentially, we think because we must figure out ways to survive and procreate.

Evolution has made us do these things through the mechanism of wanting. to achieve these wants its necessary to be "controlling". by "controlling" we can say in the sense that they must organize effective strategies to get what they want.

Organisms that fail to organize effective strategies to get what they want - well, end up never getting what they want! thus a thinking organism *must* be controlling to get what they want. this is necessarily true.

and so they must be controlling - by default - to survive, procreate and ultimately to even exist. i'm honestly surprised you would challenge this point.

and your examples of control (ice cream and unprotected sex) fall under the category of humans just being weird. we do silly and ultimately counterproductive things all the time. human behavior is not limited to only the most effective strategies of survival. everyone has a different idea of what effective survival for themselves is.

why does the alcoholic throw away his life by drinking? what is he running from? what is he trying to get? well who knows. but however what we do know is that he wants something and is using alcohol to get it.

if i could speculate i would categorize it as a mutation of the original evolutionary desire to want/control in that he wants to be happy but has chosen an ineffective way to do it.

i think you're having trouble understanding these concepts due to your lumping of humanity together as though it were one giant mound when in reality it is composed of many unique individuals - each with unique wants and desires and unique strategies for achieving those unique wants and desires. your thinking is inherently flawed because of this.

Organisms that think do so for a reason. They have to find mates, avoid predators, find food etc...

essentially, we think because we must figure out ways to survive and procreate.

Evolution has made us do these things through the mechanism of wanting. to achieve these wants its necessary to be "controlling". by "controlling" we can say in the sense that they must organize effective strategies to get what they want.

Organisms that fail to organize effective strategies to get what they want - well, end up never getting what they want! thus a thinking organism *must* be controlling to get what they want. this is necessarily true.

and so they must be controlling - by default - to survive, procreate and ultimately to even exist. i'm honestly surprised you would challenge this point.

and your examples of control (ice cream and unprotected sex) fall under the category of humans just being weird. we do silly and ultimately counterproductive things all the time. human behavior is not limited to only the most effective strategies of survival. everyone has a different idea of what effective survival for themselves is.

why does the alcoholic throw away his life by drinking? what is he running from? what is he trying to get? well who knows. but however what we do know is that he wants something and is using alcohol to get it.

if i could speculate i would categorize it as a mutation of the original evolutionary desire to want/control in that he wants to be happy but has chosen an ineffective way to do it.

i think you're having trouble understanding these concepts due to your lumping of humanity together as though it were one giant mound when in reality it is composed of many unique individuals - each with unique wants and desires and unique strategies for achieving those unique wants and desires. your thinking is inherently flawed because of this.

Click to expand...

Your theory seems to have 2 main points.
1-The link between Survival/Evolution and a universal drive for control
2-The link of the universal drive for control to individuals (or groups) underlying psychology when faced with obstacles in their subjective reality.

The theory is not deductive, so I think even adressing the first part of the theory and removing the link to evolutionary theory, the second part still needs to be adressed independently.

CONCERNING THE FIRST PART:
I think i see what your saying. your saying that:
1-All humans need to control things
2-Control implies getting what one wants and knowing how to
3-what one wants (in your sense of the term) are things directly linked to both individual and species survival (ie. procreation, food, water, shelter)

I think it can be simplied in this way:
1-All humans need to control things
2-Control implies getting what one and one's species NEEDS and knowing how to obtain it

The "weird" examples are part of the human condition as well and cannot be denied. If your saying that evolution makes it so that everyone must desire to control ultimately to survive, yet every generation there are literally millions is not billions of people that do stuff completely unlinked to survival, that in fact, counter-productive - then how can your theory account for these?

What are these, mutations? anomelies?

If you want a theory of human nature - it would make sense to ground it in mans strongest desires that everyone has: i.e. NECCESITY but not as any sort of evolutionary response/basic drive.

Although it is true that man MUST control to survive - the fact that man very very often has irrational wants tells us that which binds man neccesarily IS NOT NECCESARILY some sort of evolved instinctual drive to control.

Thus, your theory cannot be at the base of human nature. OR you need to account for a wider swath of human motivations.

Also, i don't know if you know this, but your idea is very similar to nietzsche's universal will to power theory (or at least my reconstruction of it lol... because he wrote in aphorisms so its half how i happen to have put them together by linking key terms). The difference is he accounts for the seemingly irrational shit people do.

Concerning the Second Part
I think your neglecting the interaction of different drives for control of different people/groups and their effects on reality. (this is more of an expansion of your theory than a critique)
One person could seek to control reality and this could including controlling someone else and their resources.
I think the emotional responses differ when one of is faced with "reality" as in reality as controlled by nature/god VERSUS when one is faced by "reality" which is really the result of someone elses drive for control. This could stem from different degrees of maliability to control of "reality".

The last point I made in my other post was about the interaction between intelligence/foresight and emotional responses. Presumably those with greater foresight would have greater control, and thus would ultimately be less depressed/etc. This dosen't seem to be the case, since I think its fairly true that ignorence is bliss.